jimster Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 We have two good RB's and are now using them both nicely as a change up. However, I think it could be nicely productive to occasionally see a package where both of them are on the field at the same time since so many teams are going to be keying up on Portis, lining them up in split back, etc. There could be multiple things you could do with them that could be used to our advantage in mis-direction type plays and motioning one of them to wide out causing mis-matches on coverage on them and other players like Cooley and Royal. ...not to mention just to do it as a plain old decoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 What do you think of how we are using Portis? I've said this before, but I think that we used more stretch plays in last year's Bears game than any time now. I still see Portis being asked to slam into the middle. And it's sickening to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I don't think I ever see Gibbs use a two back set, except on the goal line. Single back sets are practically his signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bounty Hunter #21 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 The new Thunder and Lightning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Skins Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 What do you think of how we are using Portis? I've said this before, but I think that we used more stretch plays in last year's Bears game than any time now. I still see Portis being asked to slam into the middle. And it's sickening to watch. I was thinking the same thing last week.. stretch the plays out for portis.. he is not John Riggins, JOE.. Like I know more then the coach but I would like to see it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 The new Thunder and Lightning no no no :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 We have two good RB's and are now using them both nicely as a change up. However, I think it could be nicely productive to occasionally see a package where both of them are on the field at the same time since so many teams are going to be keying up on Portis, lining them up in split back, etc.There could be multiple things you could do with them that could be used to our advantage in mis-direction type plays and motioning one of them to wide out causing mis-matches on coverage on them and other players like Cooley and Royal. ...not to mention just to do it as a plain old decoy. yeah I would love to see some split back formatins with both Portis and Betts/Rock on the line. They can't stop them both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 What I don't get is why in last week's games, Betts was running plays to the outside, and Portis was given plays up the middle. Isn't the Broncs run D softer up the middle than around the edges? As much as we'd like to see Portis run for 150 yds against his former team, i have a feeling this is one game where Betts should get more carries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 We have two good RB's and are now using them both nicely as a change up. However, I think it could be nicely productive to occasionally see a package where both of them are on the field at the same time since so many teams are going to be keying up on Portis, lining them up in split back, etc.There could be multiple things you could do with them that could be used to our advantage in mis-direction type plays and motioning one of them to wide out causing mis-matches on coverage on them and other players like Cooley and Royal. ...not to mention just to do it as a plain old decoy. I agree, it's exciting to see two big backs in I or T formation, it's sets up well for play action passes, and spreads out the defence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNSkinsFan Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 As much as I love Clinton Portis, we should trade him for a pass rushing D Lineman. He is a top 10 back, but Ladell can pretty much do about the same in this offense. Let the hate begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortisForPresident Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I don't think I ever see Gibbs use a two back set, except on the goal line. Single back sets are practically his signature. Drop the practically. I always understood that they were his signature. That and the H-back. Portis put on 30 lbs. of muscle this summer so he could do this. He had 1300 carries last year, BUT got hurt a few times as a result of having more carries and more up the middle than in the first two seasons of his career. So he goes into the offseason and puts on 30 pounds and people talk all preseason about how he's just punishing people? Doesn't that just scream "Coach I want to do this? I want 25 carries a game?" Not to mention my understanding is that Coach Gibbs isn't always the one who puts Betts in. Sometimes Portis just takes a breather, and they don't really mind who's in there. They like them both. Honestly though, I'm not so sure how well they would work together in the same backfield. One of my questions is how good either of them are catching passes. We aren't dealing with Ladanian or Brian Westbrook here. If they don't catch passes extremely well, I'm not sure how effective they'll be at spreading out a defense when they're both in the backfield. Is my football understanding of that a little flawed? or maybe I just underestimate the pass catching ability of portis/betts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManleyMann71 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Portis can catch a ball, very well, I'm not certain of Bett's ability though, haven't seen enough of it. Running back catching a ball out of the backfield is one of my favorite plays, that and the naked bootleg. But we all know Gibbs is not going to coach a West Coast offense, it's not his style. Which is why people are saying his offense is outdated. While I don't agree that the offense is outdated, I would love to see Portis catch the ball in the flats more, or a block and go, get him the ball just past the line. That's where he does his best work. Once Clinton gets past the O line, he's crazy good, that's where I'd like to see him get more often, and throwing the ball to him there would be a great way to do that. Just like we saw a ton of from Marshall Faulk when the Rams won their championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 We should definitely used them in a two-back set. At the very least, Portis would serve as a diversion. The bottom line is that we have to get more production from the running game. Period. Joe had better come up with something and fast because Denver is so slouch against the run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underwater Ally Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 What do you think of how we are using Portis? I've said this before, but I think that we used more stretch plays in last year's Bears game than any time now. I still see Portis being asked to slam into the middle. And it's sickening to watch. I was thinking the same thing. Its kind of perplexing. You want to mix it up of course, so that defenses don't just defend the zone with Portis and stack the middle when Betts is in, but we definitely aren't utilizing the sweeps and zones like I expected. We've added a few things to the offense since last year, but the difference has hardly been night and day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underwater Ally Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 While I don't agree that the offense is outdated, I would love to see Portis catch the ball in the flats more, or a block and go, get him the ball just past the line. That's where he does his best work. Once Clinton gets past the O line, he's crazy good, that's where I'd like to see him get more often, and throwing the ball to him there would be a great way to do that. Just like we saw a ton of from Marshall Faulk when the Rams won their championships. I think Portis and Betts both would be very effective on swing plays to the outside. I'm not holding my breath, but a two back set would work nicely for this. Play action to one, and a swing pass to the other in the opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanTheBeastTaylor Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I think we need to utilize both of them better, specially portis. The man can catch out of the backfield and has even hinted that he wants to go in motion to the slot. Having split backs also causes teams to put a linebacker on atleast one of them which would cause a mismatch. Everyone saw what happened when we put portis in the slot in the Green Bay game last year he went for like a 70yd game winning touchdown that was called back(big suprise) because of illegal motion that they hadn't called all game on each team. And to top things off the thrash didn't even go out on a pass route he was blocking so it was just flat out a wrong call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poteet Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 There is no way that Gibbs should have employed more stretch plays against Seattle. You tailor your offensive play calling to take advantage of the opposing team's weaknesses on defense. In Seattle's case, their defense is built on speed, not bulk. I'm sure Seattle hoped we employed stretch plays, but pounding them between the tackles was the way to go. They had to keep their linebackers up close and it opened up the passing game. Once we did NOT hand the ball off to Portis, the linebackers all ran back deep into pass coverage and that allowed Brunell to get some key yardage on scrambles (especially on 3rd down). I'm not an expert on Denver's D -- are they built more on speed or bulk? I do think we'll see the stretch plays against teams that have more bulk up front on the D-line and that don't have the speediest of linebackers. Gregg Williams said it best in his interview. It went kind of like this -- On defense, we don't look at attacking schemes as much as we look at attacking personnel. We want to get our guys in the right position so that our personnel matches up well against them. Gibbs obviously did the same thing on offense against Seattle. Portis did have 90 yards rushing between the tackles and the Seattle defense wore down a little. Had we run stretch plays, we would've been playing right into their hands. I'm not second guessing Gibbs' play calling at all. He's opened it up a bit, he's utilizing different sets, and he has changed some things. I know he knows more than any of us and will employ stretch plays when it suits our personnel and exploits other teams' defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underwater Ally Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I know. If Portis isn't a Gibbs' type back, rather than change his system, lets just trade Portis, Ramsey and Arrington for Jerome Bettis. He would fit Gibbs' style perfectly, and he's like 45 and past his prime, so Gibbs should love him. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 In 1981, Joe Gibbs started out 0-5 using the then conventional two-back set. It would shock the hell out of me if he went back to it. You're right about Portis and Betts , though. Their skill sets would fit the old halfback, fullback mold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.